[PATCH] manual: Remove incorrect claim that qsort() can be stabilized
Anders Kaseorg
andersk@MIT.EDU
Thu Jul 3 01:15:00 GMT 2014
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> -If you want the effect of a stable sort, you can get this result by
> -writing the comparison function so that, lacking other reason
> -distinguish between two elements, it compares them by their addresses.
> -Note that doing this may make the sorting algorithm less efficient, so
> -do it only if necessary.
> +Previous versions of this manual incorrectly claimed that you can get
> +the effect of a stable sort by writing the comparison function to
> +compare the element addresses as a last resort. This does not work
> +because, under certain conditions, @var{qsort} falls back to an in-place
> +algorithm that compares some elements after moving them around in
> +memory. The only way to perform a stable sort with @var{qsort} is to
> +first augment the objects with a monotonic counter of some kind.
>
> Personally, I think this blurb should be put in the NEWS file not
> here. To some extent it is a user-visible change.
You understand that this is not a behavior change, right? qsort has
always behaved this way; this paragraph has never been correct. We could
just remove it (let me know if you want me to send such a patch), but I
thought it might be worthwhile to say something to discourage any further
propagation of whatever misconception led to its addition in the first
place.
Anders
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list